DCB Legal Court Hearing 28th August

Coupon-mad

My advice remains as before.

A massive document now will annoy the Judge, tip off the Claimant to allow them to address some issues you could instead raise at the hearing, and your first WS had the killer info and exhibit already.

InconspicuousSheep21

Ahh okay, I suppose I could still use points relevant in this WS for the skeleton argument. I just fear that due to not having mentioned CPR16.4 PD16, which is what I'm guessing ends up being the grounds for striking the case out, it's unlikely to have a ruling in my favour.

Again, me panicking and overthinking. Could I have tipped off C through the use of this forum?

Anyone else have any opinions on the new WS?

Coupon-mad

InconspicuousSheep21 said:

Ahh okay, I suppose I could still use points relevant in this WS for the skeleton argument. I just fear that due to not having mentioned CPR16.4 PD16, which is what I'm guessing ends up being the grounds for striking the case out, it's unlikely to have a ruling in my favour.

Incorrect. The claim won't be struck out on that basis anyway. Irrelevant to you really.

The claim must be dismissed as the Claimant has failed to show that you were in breach of a 'relevant obligation'.  You will win.

InconspicuousSheep21

Ahh, I only really mentioned that due to the CEF v Chan and CPM v Akande persuasive appeal Judgments where both were dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with the CPR and PD mentioned.

The relevant obligation being the fact that I was an employee and there's failure of evidence/mention anywhere in C's WS proving as an employee I was forming a contract with C as an employee on the Land?

InconspicuousSheep21

I suppose the CPR and PD is something I can still rely on in Court when its time for the hearing since I included the PoC as an exhibit I received.

I can go about it in a manner where I inform the Judge the PoC were insufficient due to not clearly stating XYZ?

Coupon-mad

InconspicuousSheep21 said:

Ahh,

1.  I only really mentioned that due to the CEF v Chan and CPM v Akande persuasive appeal Judgments where both were dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with the CPR and PD mentioned.

2.  The relevant obligation being the fact that I was an employee and there's failure of evidence/mention anywhere in C's WS proving as an employee I was forming a contract with C as an employee on the Land?

1.  Yes we know (a VERY good tactic for defendants who are at first stage) but you are not at an early stage. Two hearings down the line in a case where you've constantly disputed the charges and clearly know what it is about, it would be a rare Judge who would listen to a sudden ambush argument about poor pleadings.

2.  There must be a breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the driver, for a PCN to stick.  You did not breach any rule relevant to employees.

InconspicuousSheep21

Coupon-mad said:

InconspicuousSheep21 said:

Ahh,

1.  I only really mentioned that due to the CEF v Chan and CPM v Akande persuasive appeal Judgments where both were dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with the CPR and PD mentioned.

2.  The relevant obligation being the fact that I was an employee and there's failure of evidence/mention anywhere in C's WS proving as an employee I was forming a contract with C as an employee on the Land?

1.  Yes we know (a VERY good tactic for defendants who are at first stage) but you are not at an early stage. Two hearings down the line in a case where you've constantly disputed the charges and clearly know what it is about, it would be a rare Judge who would listen to a sudden ambush argument about poor pleadings.

2.  There must be a breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the driver, for a PCN to stick.  You did not breach any rule relevant to employees.

My take aways based on what you've said @Coupon-mad:

1. It wouldn't be worth mentioning the non-compliance to the CPR and PD mentioned as its irrelevant to my case at this stage, if i inundate the Judge with that information it's unlikely to do anything in relation to this case?

2. The fact I was given permission by the hiring manager and retrospective permission by my employer emphasises I was not in breach of a relevant obligation since I acted in good faith on information I was provided by a tenant (aka my employer) of the Landowner?

Just for clarification, sorry for the repetitiveness, just trying to understand what you're saying completely.

About my earlier remark about me having exposed my arguments to C through the use of this forum, do you think it's likely? 

Grizebeck

Please go back and re read cms comments . Save anyone repeating themselves 

InconspicuousSheep21

Grizebeck said:

Please go back and re read cms comments . Save anyone repeating themselves 

Will do, apologies, just wasn't quite understanding what was being said and requested some clarity

Coupon-mad

InconspicuousSheep21 said:

Coupon-mad said:

InconspicuousSheep21 said:

Ahh,

1.  I only really mentioned that due to the CEF v Chan and CPM v Akande persuasive appeal Judgments where both were dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with the CPR and PD mentioned.

2.  The relevant obligation being the fact that I was an employee and there's failure of evidence/mention anywhere in C's WS proving as an employee I was forming a contract with C as an employee on the Land?

1.  Yes we know (a VERY good tactic for defendants who are at first stage) but you are not at an early stage. Two hearings down the line in a case where you've constantly disputed the charges and clearly know what it is about, it would be a rare Judge who would listen to a sudden ambush argument about poor pleadings.

2.  There must be a breach of a 'relevant obligation' by the driver, for a PCN to stick.  You did not breach any rule relevant to employees.

My take aways based on what you've said @Coupon-mad:

1. It wouldn't be worth mentioning the non-compliance to the CPR and PD mentioned as its irrelevant to my case at this stage, if i inundate the Judge with that information it's unlikely to do anything in relation to this case?

2. The fact I was given permission by the hiring manager and retrospective permission by my employer emphasises I was not in breach of a relevant obligation since I acted in good faith on information I was provided by a tenant (aka my employer) of the Landowner?

Just for clarification, sorry for the repetitiveness, just trying to understand what you're saying completely.

About my earlier remark about me having exposed my arguments to C through the use of this forum, do you think it's likely? 

1. Yes
2. Yes
 
... and no chance of that being likely!

Be confident! You have a winning argument and perfect evidence already in.